Senate President Lowell Bowditch called the regular meeting of the
senate to order at 3: 07 p.m.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

Minutes from the October 8, 2003 senate meeting were approved as
distributed. (The secretary notes two attendance
corrections that have since been made: S. Haynes and P. Scher were present at
the October 8th meeting.)New Student
Senate representatives also were introduced: Ben Strawn, Mike Sherman, Alisha
Linquist, Jessie Hardy, and Kevin Curtin.

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

Budget and enrollment update.Provost John Moseley reported that the UO budget suffered heavily in the
last year of the previous biennium and continues to suffer for the current
biennium: state funds --education and general -- will amount to less than
one-third of last year’s state funds (not including grants, contracts,
auxiliary funds and private gifts).The
UO is scheduled to receive a little more than $60 million for each year of the
2003-2005 biennium, which means that the university will be receiving fewer
total dollars and student dollars from the state than were received in 1989,
with no inflation adjustment, resulting in serious increase in tuition.The tuition increase is making up for loss
of state funds and increased expenditures driven by enrollment growth, not
per-student expenditures.Expenditures
have been a flat $11,000 per student since 1999; this year it will be $10,300
per student with no inflation correction.

Last year’s decision to increase UO entrance requirements for
better enrollment management resulted in no enrollment growth for the first
time in five years.The money is being
made up in non-resident students and private gifts.Non-resident enrollment is down by a few hundred students.The loss of international students is due in
part to post September 11, 2001 standards that make it difficult to obtain
visas; and other countries are recognizing the value of bringing international
students to their universities.The
provost noted that international students are important culturally and
educationally to the UO.The loss of their
tuition dollars is also a reality.Total non-resident tuition (including international students) is $2.5
million less than expected.If the UO
cannot continue the educational quality and access traditionally delivered, the
result will be the loss of more non-resident students.

The provost noted that this year’s budget balanced after a 3% cut
across all non-fixed budgets.Payments
on bonds, rents, leases, and so forth, are fixed and cannot be reduced.He indicated that next year’s budget
(2004-2005) is not balanced and is dependant on two additional issues: (1) the
income tax surcharge that may be repealed causing a $2.5 million reduction to
the University in a one-year period and increasing the possibility of
additional tuition increases; and (2) the legislature passed a bill requiring
the Oregon University System (OUS) to return $14 million of student tuition to
the general fund by January 2005 (ostensibly to make up for the "savings"
realized from changes to the retirement system [PERS]).The latter bill will be challenged, but
either way the money can be re-appropriated by the Emergency Board.Because the UO receives the largest amount
of state money, the loss of funds would be $4.7 million.Consequently, if the income tax surcharge is
repealed, the general fund repayment happens, and next year’s enrollment
projections are not met, a further budget cut will result.The good news is that enrollment has been
maintained even with the tuition increases, the current freshman class meets
the highest standards set to date, and access to classes has been
maintained.

The provost opened the floor for questions.Mr. Frank Stahl, biology, asked about the
source of negativity concerning higher education.Provost Moseley responded that the public likely does not hold
higher education in high regard because the legislature implies its low regard
by inadequately funding it.Senator Ben
Strawn, ASUO, asked if next year’s projected enrollment is the same as this
year’s, to which the provost responded that it is essentially the same.He remarked that the UO cannot increase the
number of resident students until the legislature is willing to fund them;
enrollment growth will have to come through non-resident students.

Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, asked how we could work
together to face such an overwhelming deficit.Provost Moseley suggested that the faculty continue to provide classes
and interactions that maintain high standards to prevent the quality of a UO
education from deteriorating in the face of what he hopes is a short term
crises.Senator Frances Cogan, honors
college, asked if alternative ideas in teaching more cost effectively, such as
E-teaching and computer courses, have been discussed.The provost answered yes, and that there are a few such classes
happening now.Offering professional
development in using the campus network for efficient teaching is being
considered, but the general thinking is that most students would not thrive in
a purely electronic environment.Some
classes – for example, 4-hour classes that meet twice a week – may benefit from
meeting once a week with the rest of the teaching conducted on-line.Actual meeting hours would be reduced, but
learning would be increased.However,
such new programs require money to develop.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

Election of new Committee on Committees members. The Senate Nominating Committee nominated
Ellen Scott, sociology, and Deb Merskin, journalismand communication,as candidates for two vacancies on the senate’s Committee on
Committees.Both were elected by
acclamation.

Election of Interinstitutional Faculty Senate (IFS)
representative.Senator Nathan
Tublitz, biology, was elected unanimously to serve a three-year term (starting
January 2004) as the UO representative to the IFS.President Bowditch noted that an alternate position (a one-year,
renewable) on the IFS was still open; senators or faculty members should
contact her if interested in serving as an alternate.

Notice of Motion regarding recent revisions to OAR 571-20 (Student
Records Policy).SenatorDaniel
Pope, history, stated his intention to make a motion during the December senate
meeting that would call for rescinding the recently adopted revisions to the
Student Records Policy and redrafting the policy with senate oversight and
input.Senator Pope indicated the text
of the motion would be available soon and posted on the web page (see
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-5.html).

NEW BUSINESS

Resolution
US03/04-1 regarding the siting process for the
University basketball and events arena.It
wasmoved and passed that Resolution US03/04-1, which had been tabled
during the October senate meeting be moved to the floor for debate, with
revised (updated) text substituted for the original resolution.The resolution now reads:

Whereas a location for a basketball and events arena and associated
facilities has been chosen by the University; and

Whereas University of Oregon Policy Statement 7.000 (Foundation Practices
and Procedures) requires review of such projects by the Campus Planning
Committee;

Be It Resolved that, the
University of Oregon University Senate

Hereby expresses its strong
opposition to the siting process for the arena and associated facilities that
has taken place to date; and

Hereby urges and expects the
University administration to submit its proposal to the Campus Planning
Committee for review, and to follow other established campus planning
procedures for the siting of the arena and associated facilities.

Senator Mike Russo, management, spoke first regarding the
resolution that he sponsored, noting that his remarks in support of the
resolution should not be interpreted as a lack of gratitude for the arena
donors’ generosity.He spoke of the
importance of following established procedures concerning campus planning, and
that there was a sense the system is out of balance and needs to be
addressed.Senator Russo suggested that
planning documents exist to restrain the behavior of individuals and to move
the campus in a consistent, forward direction.A unified campus plan, he continued, reinforces and enhances the campus
beauty; if the campus plan becomes optional, the physical attributes of the
campus may not be as attractive to students.Before relinquishing the floor to further discussion, Senator Russo
invited Vice President Dan Williams to comment on handouts provided to the
senators regarding campus planning policy and involvement of the Campus
Planning Committee (CPC) from this point forward (see
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/Explaination10Nov03.pdf,
and
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/Frohnmayer10Nov03.pdf
and minutes of October 8, 2003.)

Vice President Williams reminded the senators of the reasons given
during the October senate meeting rgarding the decision to site the new arena
at Howe Field.He indicated that the
administration felt that the university would realize the greatest benefit of
the donors’ financing gifts (efficiencies in contract bidding and construction
time frame) by setting up non-profit corporation subsidiary of the UO
Foundation to handle the project in conjunction with the university.Mr. Williams then drew attention to the
November 10, 2003 memo from President Frohnmayer to CPC Chairwoman Carole Daly
that outlines a significant role for the planning committee in the arena
project from this point forward.A
question was asked how the resolution would affect President Frohnmayer’s memo
to the CPC and the long-range campus plan.Professor Russo responded that the resolution urges that the CPC be
involved in the whole arena siting process, while President Frohnmayer’s memo
sees the committee being involved from this point forward.

Senator Jeffrey Hurwitz, art history, asked if the second part of
the resolution suggests revisiting the arena site decision and possibly
starting the process over.Professor
Russo clarified that the goal of the resolution is to express opposition to the
procedure used for siting the arena and to remedy the situation, that is, to
have the UO conduct a review consistent with planning policy.Senator Hurwitz suggested that if there is
opposition to the site selected, the resolution should state opposition and
urge reconsideration of the site decision.Senator Russo responded that the purpose of the resolution is not to
oppose the site, but for the CPC to review all of the site choices within the
process, perhaps starting with the short list of sites, and moving forward.

Senator Malcolm Wilson, classics, noted that the resolution was
written prior to administration’s explanatory handout of the planning process
stated in the UO Policy Statement 7.000 regarding UO Foundation Practices and
Procedures.He again stated that the
resolution is intended to take the process back to the CPC stage, as stated in
the policy statement.He continued that
because the administration has agreed the CPC should be involved, the
resolution seems out of date now; nevertheless, the resolution stands as an
adequate expression of the will of the Senate that the administration should
adhere to its own expressed policies.

Senator Psaki observed that the November 10th
Frohnmayer memo issued to the CPC contains instructions that appear
circular.She noted (on page 2) the
committee was to "immediately begin the process of amending the long range
plan," and thus she wondered if the long-range campus development plan would
remain permanently changed and would any new projects match the arena criteria
or the policies.She also asked which
established campus-planning procedures have been violated.Senator Russo, reading from UO policy 7.00,
(see
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/ch7b.html),
pointed out that advisory groups and the president’s
office can approve, reject, or modify recommendations of the CPC, but the
process must go through CPC.

Senator Lars Skalnes, political science, questioned why the
university did not follow policy in determining the arena site.Vice President Williams responded that the
policy was written in 1983 at a time when most building was done through state
funds more so than through private donor funds, and the policy has not been
updated accordingly.And, since it
initially appeared that siting the arena would be off campus rather than on
campus, the circumstances did not seem to warrant following the policy.

Senator Peter Gilkey, mathematics, moved to amend the resolution
by adding the words implications of to the last sentence, to read: …" and
to follow other established campus planning procedures for implications of
the siting of the arena and associated facilities.Senator Gilkey explained the purpose of the
amendment is to move the issue to the planning committee for discussion of the
implications of the siting rather than the siting decision itself.

Discussion of the proposed wording change focused first on
wordsmithing attempts to make the meaning more clear, and then on whether a
resolution was necessary at all since the proposed amended language reflected
action already delineated in President Frohnmayer’s memo.Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, spoke in
opposition to the amendment, saying that although she appreciated the spirit
behind it she was not swayed by the suggestion that there is something wrong
with the language of the original resolution; it objects to the process used
and calls for backing up and following proper procedures.

Campus Planning Committee member and Senator Gene Luks, computer
science, also spoke against the amendment.He indicated that the arena siting issue was brought to the CPC in a
preliminary way in 2002, with the implication that the committee would be kept
informed throughout the process, which has not happened.He said the 1983 planning policy is not a
20-year old, out-of-date process, and there is no reason to back away from the
main resolution’s language.

The question to amend the resolution was called and the motion
to amend the resolution by adding the words implications of failed by
voice vote.

The main resolution was back on the floor for debate.Discussion focused on why the CPC was not
part of the siting process.Vice
President Williams said the project consultants were aware of criteria the CPC
would have used in site selection recommendations.He noted the consultants talked with members of the CPC on at
least two occasions.Senator Wilson
countered Mr. William’s explanation of CPC involvement and consultation by
quoting CPC minutes from May 27, 2003, which noted, "If the decision is made to
site the arena on campus, the plan will return to the Campus Planning Committee
for review and approval."Mr. Williams
replied that the decision to give the project to a non-profit subsidiary organization
of the UO Foundation was made after the May meeting.The two considerations for moving forward at that time were
addressing state facility statutes, which could save money, and timing the
project so the building would be done by the start of the 2006 basketball
season.

Senator Tublitz spoke in favor of the resolution, saying the most
important issue not being addressed is that of shared governance.He noted that President Frohnmayer often
quotes the UO charter and expresses pride that this university is run by the
president and faculty.Thus, he
continued, to make decisions outside the governance system goes against the
rule of law on this campus, and for this reason, it was essential to vote in
favor of the resolution.

Senator Garrett Epps, law, expressed concern that the UO is dividing
into two processes, one for athletics and one for everyone else, but added he
did not believe the administration will reconsider the site location.Speaking in support of the motion, Senate
Vice President Andrew Marcus, geography, noted there have been several events
in the last year that undercut the UO’s shared governance.Now, it appears that the largest building
project on campus has moved forward without faculty input, so it is important
for the senate to make a stand for the future, particularly because a large
portion of future buildings will be privately funded.

Senator Jessie Harding, ASUO, acknowledged that procedural steps
were skipped, but there has been no contractual violation.He felt the issue is really about who is
unhappy with the site selected rather than the process.If the issue is about shared governance, the
resolution should be about shared governance.Senator Karen McPherson, romance languages, returned to concern
expressed earlier about President Frohnmayer’s memo charging the CPC to ‘begin
the process of amending the development plan to accommodate the new
arena’.She opined that supporting the
resolution would put the Senate on record in support of the CPC and maintaining
UO policies.Provost Moseley then
interjected that amending the campus plan is a common procedure that has
happened during many projects.It is
the CPC’s job to look at each plan; the actions taken were not to change the
general procedures.

Senator Wagenknecht reiterated Senator Russo’s request not to
interpret the debate on this issue as lack of gratitude or appreciation.The reality of a public institution is that
private funding will have strings attached.She suggested the senate might consider a new committee to work with the
administration to keep the senate informed about donors’ wants and needs and
potential "attachments" to the donor’s money.Senator Chris Ellis, economics, served on the CPC and provided context
for the committee’s work by explaining that the long-range campus plan is a
guideline for what development on campus should look like.The committee looks to see if a project fits
or not into the overall campus plan.In
this context, he suggested, it is a problem the committee was not involved with
comparing all of the site choices, but notes nearly all the sites were off
campus.He supported Senator
Wagenknecht’s comments.

Senator Anne Dhu McLucas, music, asked that if the original
process did not go to the CPC because of legalities, would this resolution be
ignored because of those same legal implications?Vice President Williams said that too many public processes could
jeopardize the donation.If this
resolution passes it is unknown whether or not it will be adhered to for this
particular project.

Concerns were expressed regarding whether the process would be ignored even if the resolution were passed,
how current and future donors' philanthropy might be impacted, what restrictions might be placed by donors in regard to
university objectives, and the feelings of dissatisfaction and distrust between faculty and the administration. In general,
views expressed the notion that a positive vote supports the principle of shared governance.

The question was called. Resolution US03/04-1 regarding the
siting process for the University basketball and events arena passed
unanimously by voice vote (1 abstention, Wagenknecht).

Notice of Resolution US03/04-3 regarding the Coalition of
Intercollegiate Athletics and framework for athletics reform.Senator Jim Earl, English, gave notice of
his intention to ask the senate, at a future meeting, to join the Coalition on
Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and endorse a framework for athletics reform
statement (see
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/US034-3.html
and related documents).He commented
about the national debate regarding the future of college sports with a large
number of issues catching attention of many commentators.Examples of national debating include the
Knight Commission report, NCAA President Myles Brand’s published views on
college sports, commercialization of the university, and Bowen’s book on
intercollegiate athletics.

Senator Earl continued that the Coalition of Intercollegiate
Athletics (COIA) came into existence in 2002, and that he is a
representative.Composed of Division
I-A faculty senate leaders across the country, as well as bowl championship
school representatives, and others, the COIA represents 140 schools.Each school is being asked to consider
supporting the COIA and thus forging a faculty voice in this debate.Over the last month, Stanford, Indiana,
Nebraska, Alabama, Mississippi State, Duke, and other universities have
endorsed the framework of the coalition. (see
Framework
for Comprehensive Athletics Reform
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen034/dirUS034-3/Framework.html.)

The COIA advertises itself as a moderate athletics reform
group.Senator Earl explained that
there is no interest in eliminating or trimming sports; rather, the coalition
is trying to arrive at consensus language with which faculty senates can
agree.Working through NCAA and faculty
governance procedures, the goal is for long-term moderate reform, addressing various
issues such as academic integrity, commercialization, budget "arms races", and
so forth.The framework statement was
written to develop appropriately flexible strategies for implementation,
recognizing differences among schools while looking for general
principles.The goal of reform is to
bring out the positive aspects of intercollegiate athletics.

Senator Earl briefly outlined five general areas of reform
concern: academic integrity, athlete welfare, shared governance, finances, and
over-commercialization.Faculty have
the greatest control in the area of academic integrity.Limiting athletic participation in
non-academic activities to 20 hours per week, although hard to enforce, is a
reform goal.Shared oversight of
athletics among governing boards, administration, and faculty should involve
clear communication and complementary responsibilities.The framework suggests the link between
winning and financial solvency should have broader revenue sharing and limits
on budgets and capital expenditures.Over commercialization and excessive marketing should be tempered with
cost cutting and clear set standards.The coalition is the affirmation of the growing need for national
standards in approaching the link between athletics and academics, thus several
"best practices" statements are being designed for national standards that can
be adapted locally.

When the floor was opened for questions senate representative on
the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (IAC) Kim Sheehan, journalism, relayed
several concerns from the IAC.Regarding the the framework document and the COIA, she suggesting that
the framework statement contained a number of points which may affect the UO;
more information is needed to understand the consequences of adherence to the framework
as well as joining the COIA.Senator
Sheehan listed a number of questions that needed clarification.She noted that the committee would continue
to review the framework.

Senator Earl provided some other background information about the
coalition.He explained that the
organization was formed with 10 former faculty senate presidents on the
steering committee.Periodic meetings
occurred in Chicago and Indianapolis.Membership is not defined and there is no budget or legal structure;
however, the NCAA and the AAUP have consulted with the group and a leadership
role is developing.Senator Earl said
that the faculty voice is increased with each school that endorses the
framework, and there are currently 40 schools that consider themselves members.Stanford had already endorsed the framework
and Rutgers is at the same stage as the UO.Senator Earl noted that real reform takes time, so using several senate
meetings to come to a decision is acceptable with him.The goal is to have a majority of Division
1-A schools affirming this framework by the end of the 2003/2004 academic-year.

Senator Cogan asked what actual result would come from endorsing
the framework.Senator Earl responded
there seems to be momentum to standardize and develop guidelines from faculty
perspectives.In the case of the
coalition, workshops with as many as 60 schools represented, have talked about
the structure of athletic committees and the need for a national faculty
standard.He noted that the University
of Oregon is almost a best practices school having already achieved perhaps 99%
of the framework’s ideal.The UO has a
clean athletic department with high standards and responsible faculty
oversight.In terms of the reforms the
coalition is proposing, the UO is very close.Senator Psaki concluded the discussion with a question wondering what
the UO would lose (financially) if it does not support the framework.

ADJOURNMENT

With the hour growing later and the business concluded, Senate
President Bowditch adjourned the meeting at 4:57 p.m.